Here in the UK the Guardian has a regular column called “Bad Science” which exposes . . . well, “bad” science, pseudo science, and “popular science” ideas – like homeopathy. Maggi Dawn has suggested on her blog the brilliant idea of a “Bad Theology” column. So what bad theologies, or pseudo theological ideas would you include, and why?

This article is rather fun. Apparently reflecting on the divinity (or if you are Atheist – meditating) cultivates brain activity in the areas that promote compassion and a sense of well being.

How cool is that!

“Liberal” churches may be sabotaging themselves by reducing the commitment of their members – so suggests a recent report in New Scientist. The persecution of early Christians may have had a dramatic effect on the spread of Christianity because the sacrifices of martyrs and confessors instilled in others the idea of sincerity: “few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in”.

Once people believe they are more likely to undertake or endure similar displays of committment. Through a mathematical model, the study suggests that this becomes a “self-reinforcing loop” enabling the belief system to persist over time.

The suggestion is that communities that expect a higher level of committment as displayed through particular behaviour endure and grow whereas those communities which do not eventually dissipate. Comparing liberal Protestant churches and fundamentalist Protestant churches appears to prove the point.

How is this relevant to OC/IC communities?

I dare say that today there might be a few confessors out there, but not too many martyrs. So lets look at the effects of more down to earth forms of “costly sacrifices”.

The study suggests that acts of sacrifice, or self-denial/renunciation by religious leaders has a stronger overall impact on the commitment of others. So, how many of our OC/IC leaders and clergy are regularly participating in the life and community of other churches? From the stand point of a visitor/observer/participant – if my local indie bishop, priest or lay leader is heavily involved in another tradition then this indie thing must not be worth my own personal investment.

This opens the door to the next question, assume our leaders are setting the example, are we doing enough to cultivate, and encourage “membership” through the right of chrismation? That is to say – if our leaders have “sacrificed” the (false) safety net of another church, then are we also encouraging the same within the community as a whole? In short are we actively giving people a reason to give a confident “yes” to the OC/IC way of life, and be willing to whole heartedly throw in their lot with us?

Keeping in mind the above two points, how might the common practice of open communion affect committment to, identification with our OC/IC communities?

Finally, in our history can we point to as an exemplar of commitment to the OC/IC ideal? I can think of a few, such as Varlet and Ofiesh, how about you?

I read with interest this article by Dr. Murdo MacDonald Policy Officer for the Society, Religion and Technology Project for the Church of Scotland on that church’s stance on stem cell research. I then started asking about how this, and issues like it, are being explored in OC/IC communities. However, I have as yet, seen no discussion of stem cell research and similar issues in other OC/IC places (other than here) – have you?

Come to think about it – I cannot recall seeing many (read “any”) discussions of the interplay of science and religion, contemporary ethics, and similar contemporary issues in OC/IC settings – can you?

This leads me to ask: why? Why is it that in our forums issues gravitate towards the same, predictable, limited set: ordination of women, same sex marriage, ordination of LGBT, ritualism, and oh, lets not forget – the all holy “puppy pedigree” monster? Are we that . . . . intellectually, and spiritually “stunted” that we are incapable of intelligent discussion on other, more pressing, indeed more interesting matters?

I know based on knowing the backgrounds of many OC/IC folk, that we have a large cadre of highly intelligent, thoughtful, interesting, well educated people in the movement today – so why are we not enjoying the benefit of their insight, research, and expression of OC/IC ideas on a larger scale than a few clandestine phone calls, or quiet emails passed under the table?

What is interesting to me is the realisation that this narrow “set” of regularly regurgitated issues has a direct effect on how our members perceive this tradition, and how outsiders see us. Don’t you think it is time we make a concerted effort to speak to a wider audience, to cultivate voices of faith, thoughtful, and engaged with issues that matter? What are you, and your local OC/IC community doing to bring about a broader, more in-depth conversation about the OC/IC praxis of today (rather than that of a century ago)?

I’m fascinated by the whole “God does [does not] exist debate” raging between militant atheists like the Dawkins cabal, and the shrill screamings of Fundamentalist-Creationists. So like a crow drawn to shiny things, I’m drawn to read essays and articles about this debate – and usually fall over laughing. Ocasionally, however, there is a refreshing breeze in the thick miasma of hystrionic shrieking and name-calling. Here’s one I found this morning from HE Baber at Guardian CIF Belief:

Does God exist? I don’t know and neither does anyone else. But Science has not, will not, and cannot disprove the existence of God. Scientific hypotheses can only defeat other scientific hypotheses. Theological claims, however, are not scientific hypotheses and do not purport to explain natural phenomena.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this debate lately – largely because of the many articles, essays, exhibits, and documentaries now swirling about celebrating the 200th anniversary of Darwin. How does this science and religion debate fit within our OC/IC context?

One thing that stands out, and proud, for me is a central pillar of our tradition: free enquiry and good scholarship. A surprise to some given our history over the the past 85 years but it is indeed the case that our OC/IC tradition emerged largely due to the defence of free enquiry and scholarship.

I would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religious duty to engage in, or support scholarship within our OC/IC community, and wherever else it might be found. Thus, since evolution is the best factual description of the mechanics of the natural world we’ve yet found – it is our religious duty to accept it, defend it, and indeed celebrate our curiosity, our desire to understand the world we live in.

We are “signatories” to the Clergy Letter Project – an effort started by Michael Zimmerman of Butler University to give voice to believers (not just Christians) who think that the war over evolution and faith is misguided to say the least. I should add that Michael would like to see more OC/IC representatives on the letter. You can find out more about it, and how you can participate at the above link.

This year is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species, and has been marked by congregations of various denominations as Evolution Weekend for a number of years now.

As part of our participation – and our effort to create resources for OC/IC communities interested in this topic we’ve collected a few useful links that might help your community or mission to explore/discuss “science and religion”.

From NPR

From Religion & Ethics News Weekly

From Speaking of Faith

From Pew Forum

From the Washington Post

In a post two weeks ago I raised the question of when personhood begins. Andrew Brown, writing for the Guardian the other day describes a debate between the secular philosopher John Harris, and Professor David Jones of St. Mary’s College (Roman Catholic) which raised an even more useful (and perhaps even more unanswerable) question: what gives that “life” value?

The scenario, as Brown describes it goes something like this: at one end of the birth canal it is an embryo, and can be destroyed, at the other end – in the world – it is a valued human being. Nothing happens in transit to impart value on that life – so what does, and where does it begin?

Of course in this scenario there is that sense of liminality I raised in the previous post – when the “life” is neither human, nor not human. But Brown ends with a very interesting point:

“It seems to me that one of the reasons that a moral philosopher might postulate God is that it doesn’t make much sense to talk about things being valuable and worthwhile if you aren’t prepared to suggest to whom or what they are valuable or worthwhile. This is where the God of orthodox Christianity comes in handy, because he is by definition the only being who can value everything entirely for its own sake. Everything else in the universe – possibly everything in the universe – finds other things valuable and worthwhile in as much as they serve its purposes.”

The natural follow up question, albeit an exceptionally scholastic one, in relation to “personhood” and “value” is: at which point in the process does God assign value to this “life”?

If, “personhood” and “value” are assigned at the moment of conception (sperm & egg fusing) then we ought to also consider for a moment the effect of the biology involved. Each one of us (unless you are fraternal twins) exists at the expense of other “lives” that were naturally destroyed in the womb – if we accept that they too were “valued” or “persons” then it is not unreasonable to ask why they were destroyed.

As I’ve said previously – this cannot be reduced to black and white answers, and polarized positioning – indeed this is an object lesson in the sacramental way of life – we stand in the mystery, in that liminal space, celebrating the challenges of discernment, enjoying that little bit of wonder and awe in the process.

With the recent flood of media attention on the emerging “Fundamentalist Atheism”, and the renewed debate between faith and reason this recent New Scientist segment exploring the pros, cons, and pitfalls of reason is rather timely. Contributors include the Abp. of Canterbury, Noam Chomsky, and the artist Keith Tyson.

Over the past few months I’ve been mulling over the question: “Why believe”. Increasingly I like my partner’s answer to the question: because Christ’s teaching is compelling. That it is. But I am not entirely satisfied with this answer alone. So I’ve been very interested in the increasingly vocal debate – here in the UK at least – over the past year between the theist and atheist camps.

What has caught my attention of late is the battle over science. Regular readers will know that my community here in London participated in this year’s Clergy Letter Project (we’re still working on our video series which seems to be expanding in scope at a frightening pace!). This morning I am reading Julian Baggini’s A Short Introduction to Atheism (OUP, ISBN 019 280 424 3) and it struck me that one element of the debate is the contention that at least one of the primary purposes of religion is to explain the world around us.

I don’t know about you, but I have a problem with this. In my experience of my faith I have never found myself turning to the Bible, or our tradition to explain the natural world. And here we enter the realm of the relationship between science and religion. Science is the pursuit of such explanations – the results are observable facts about our world and environment. I accept these findings as fact. What impact does this have on my faith?

In the run up to the weekend of the Clergy Letter Project I listened to a pod-cast of the National Academy of Science and in it, one of the speakers made a wonderful statement, something along the lines of: I do not believe in science, rather I accept it as fact. I found this a wonderful statement and have been mulling over it ever since.

In the run up to Evolution Weekend we’ve been looking at some resources. This is a recent 88 page book produced by the National Academies Press and available online for free (both inline and as a PDF). The argument in part is that there is (or ought not to be) conflict between science and religion. I’m listening to the inaugural podcast whilst typing this, and plan to read the book this afternoon.